sqweels:
I’ve got to know, why do you have “accidents” in quotes? Do you feel that most auto accidents are due to the negligence of all drivers (and passengers) involved?
I’m not following you.
Look, here’s my reasoning, tell me what part you disagree with:
-
Sex with contraceptives is not meant to create babies.
1a) If 1 is true, sex with contraceptives is not done for a practical purpose. It is recreational: It is used for fun and socializing.
NOTE: I am not saying that’s bad. I’d be the last person to tell you not to have recreational sex. -
Health insurance should cover things like cholesterol medication, lung transplants, or antibiotics: Medication or procedures necessary to ensure the customer functions normally.
2b) Health insurance should NOT cover things that are NOT necessary to ensure normal functioning, such as cosmetic plastic surgery (With a few exceptions, such as injury recuperation), nonprescription medication for minor problems (such as Tylenol or generic cough syrup, unless doctor-mandated) or toothpaste. -
Contraceptives are used to allow recreation, not to fix health problems.
-
If 1, 2, and 3 are all true, there is no reason for health insurance companies to allow contraceptives.
Aside from the above reasoning, I see very little reason for health insurance provided contraceptives to be needed in the first place. Nearly everyone in the United States can afford contraceptives. Anyone who can’t can get them free at Planned Parenthood or any number of similar organizations.
Seriously, a pack of condoms costs what, a dollar? The Pill is really not that expansive. Contraceptives are widely available to just about anyone. Even children can buy them.
The REAL problem is in education. People preach abstinence in schools and the evils of contraceptives in churches. The problem isn’t that contraceptives aren’t available; it’s that people don’t want to use them.
Cost is probably not a major barrier, especially if you feel strongly about not getting pregnant. But if you’re on the fence about the issue, cost could be a tipping point factor.
Also, presumably we’re not only talking about BC coverage to women, but also their dependents. More parents might be agreeable to getting their daughters on the pill if it’s free.
I think that dental insurance paying for floss and toothpaste is the best analogy. If preventative measures save money, then why doesn’t dental insurance cover toothpaste with no copay?
It is, like you point out with birth control, 95+% of the population can afford it and will buy it out of pocket without a subsidy. How does it make financial sense for you to pay for something that someone else was going to pay for out of his own pocket?
So with contraception, the insurance companies are going to end up paying for things that most women now pay for. It increases the cost of insurance for no reason.
The aspects you are willing to ignore are more important than the aspects you are willing to accept in your analogy.
The slippery slope part where anything you consider analogous to sex in this narrow way should also be covered, if we’re going to cover birth control.
Health insurance probably don’t cover contraception normally because of a few reasons (if they don’t, which I don’t know). Firstly, most contraceptive use is not observable. Second, even if it is (e.g. implants), only condoms really act to prevent sexually transmitted diseases and that’s definitely unobservable. Even if it is in the insurance company’s interest for their customers to practice safe sex, that doesn’t mean they would support it via covering birth control. It doesn’t actually make sense to think that if an insurance company covers something, it must save them money, and if they don’t cover something, it wouldn’t save them money, because there are leagues and leagues of things that do save them money and which they would support with things like discounts if only they could observe the behavior. Insurance markets have this niggling problem of information imbalance. You, the insured, get to observe your own behavior, but your insurance company who is on the hook for the consequences of your behavior doesn’t get to.
This is why they don’t pay for seatbelts or toothpaste, too. Brushing your teeth and buckling up are unobservable. They’d almost certainly subsidize your brushing behavior if they could observe that you’re doing it right and often. They don’t have to subsidize seatbelts because we’ve already decided as a society to deal with seatbelts in a different fashion (disincentives via law enforcement rather than incentives via insurance).
There is no slipping and there is no slope. It’s a direct analogy. He’s not saying that insurance should pay for those things, he’s explaining why it doesn’t and why birth control pills are in the same category.
you with the face: Does the HCRB require insurers to provide birth control for minor children (or children below he age of consent in a given state)? I would be floored if that were the case, but maybe I’m just out of touch with the whole issue.
Analogies are excellent tools for explaining the unfamiliar, but they have no logical force. If you are not familiar with this aspect of analogies, then there is nothing to say.
There is nothing to say because you have made no attempt to address the actual subject of any the posts you have responded to.
So no, not nearly everyone in the US can afford contraceptives.
Birth control pills usually cost $30-$60 a month. That is a lot for a low-wage worker trying to feed and house her family. When I was in my early 20s, my $35 BC pills were hard for me to afford.
It’s also not that easy to just go get free pills at Planned Parenthood. Poor people often lack access to transportation. How are they going to be able to travel to the nearest PP clinic? Also, I doubt most children are able to easily afford or access birth control. How would they afford it? It’s hard for a young teen to be able to afford $30 a month.
Also, condoms are not $1 a pack. They’re more than that. Not sure exactly how much but I am sure someone can chime in.
Sex is a basic human function. Yes, it can be recreation, but it is as natural and necessary as eating, sleeping or other normal bodily functions. Nearly all women will be on birth control at some time in their lives. Many will be on it for decades. It is an essential health care necessity. It should be more affordable and accessible.
I’m not buying that uncited statistic, but let’s just say it’s true. How does that imply that the 67% who can afford them should get them for free. Still, no one is saying that poor people shouldn’t be given help.
Poor people should be helped. Rich people should not be helped. What part of that is hard to understand?
So, why don’t we provide free food to rich people?
Well that’s a shame.
I took the tine to listthe logical steps I took in order to arrive at my conclusion. In response, youbasically said “You’re wrong. Why? Because.”
I really am trying to understand your PoV. If, as you assert, sex isn’t simply recreational, could you explain what it IS?
You took the time to avoid reiterating the part I disagreed with, and then want to know what exactly I’m disagreeing with. That kind of dodge isn’t very clever and warrants no other response.
What the heck are you talking about? I reiterated your disagreement one line bellow the part you quoted. You’re stating that sex is an essential function. A quarter inch bellow your quote, I restate that and ask you to elaborate.
I objected to your slippery slope. You compare birth control to something, and based on that analogy, suggest that if we were to cover birth control, we should cover these other things, too. I really don’t care if you think birth control should be covered; and even if we have some reasons for covering birth control, that doesn’t imply that every analogy we can make to birth control on some quality or other compels us to also cover these other things (toothpaste, protective gear for skateboarders). You don’t even have to click back a page to see that objection.
It’s like post #86 doesn’t exist…
I already adressed that; clearly, I’m asking about something else. As in, your “sex is a need” assertion. Reading comprehention. Get some.
Edit: To be perfectly clear, there is no slope. I’m not saying x leads to y; I’m saying x and y are the same and in fact, y makes more sense than x.
There are a couple of ways that birth control won’t save money. The first is if everyone pays for it themselves, which we see does not happen. It is great for Planned Parenthood to take up some of the slack, but they are scarce when compared to the woman’s gynecologist - someone she should be visiting anyway. Anyhow dumping the cost on Planned Parenthood is not avoiding the cost, just redirecting it from the societal point of view.
The second way is if birth is cheaper than a few years of pills. Not likely.
The rich can afford to pay for their own annual checkups. Should we exclude them from insurance also?
I think it would be pretty hard to determine how many pregnancies are due to not taking the pill in any part of America. How many abortions could be prevented? How many people just deal with it and decide to want the baby? However, considering that babies are expensive both to have and to raise, the leverage of a freely available pill is pretty big.
Plus there is the factor that lots of press about how evil it is to pay for the pill might discourage its use beyond insurance issues.
Because toothpaste doesn’t require a prescription. Condoms, which also doesn’t, isn’t covered either.
I once was prescribed mouthwash, a powerful variety. That was covered.
I know that’s what you’re saying. This is exactly what I object to. Of course, when you rephrase your argument, you carefully avoid making this comparison of any consequence. So how many times do you think we should run around this tree?